Is it a good Idea to kick all non Whites out of America ?

The 99 year British lease on Hong Kong expired in July allowing the RedChinese to take over. Hundreds of newspaper stories and TV reports havecovered this event but not one revealed how England first gained control ofHong Kong! The truth lies buried in the family line of David Sassoon, "TheRothschilds of The Far East," and their monopoly over the opium trade.Britain won Hong Kong by launching the opium Wars to give the Sassoonsexclusive rights to drug an entire nation!

Hong Kong Founded as Sassoon Drug Center

David Sassoon was born in Baghdad, Iraqn in 1792. His father, Saleh Sassoon, was a wealthy banker and the treasurer to Ahmet Pasha, the governor of Baghdad. (Thus making him the "court Jew" - a highly influential position.) In 1829 Ahmet was

overthrown due to corruption and the Sassoon family fled to Bombay, India. This was the strategic trade route to interior India and the gateway to the Far East. In a brief time the British government granted Sassoon "monopoly rights" to all manufacture of cotton goods, silk and most important of all - Opium - then the most addictive drug in the world!

The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1905, states that Sassoon expanded his opium trade into China and Japan. He placed his eight sons in charge of the various major opiumexchanges in China. According to the 1944 Jewish Encyclopedia: "He employed only Jews in his business, and wherever he sent them he built synagogues and schools for them. He imported whole families of fellow Jews. . . and put them to work."

Sassoon's sons were busy pushing this mind-destroying drug in Canton, China. Between 1830 - 1831 they trafficked 18,956 chests of opium earning millions of dollars. Part of the profits went to Queen Victoria and the British government. In the year 1836 the trade increased to over 30,000 chests and drug addiction in coastal cities became endemic.

In 1839, the Manchu Emperor ordered that it be stopped. He named the Commissioner of Canton, Lin Tse-hsu, to lead a campaign against opium. Lin seized 2,000 chests of Sassoon opium and threw it into the river. An outraged David Sassoon demanded that Great Britain retaliate. Thus, the Opium Wars began with the British Army fighting as mercenaries of the Sassoons. They attacked cities and blockaded ports. The Chinese Army, decimated by 10 years of rampant opium addiction, proved no match for the British Army. The war ended in 1839 with the signing of "The Treaty of Nanking." This included provisions especially designed to guarantee the Sassoons the right to enslave an entire population with opium. The "peace treaty" included these provisions: "1) Full legalization of the opium trade in China, 2) compensation from the opium stockpiles confiscated by Lin of 2 million pounds, 3) territorial sovereignty for the British Crown over severaldesignated offshore islands.

That's right, and in 1900, USA invaded China to force them to keep on allowing opium merchants.

Most of the biggest universities in USA were built with opium money. No wonder that universities support all sorts of depravity.

The 99 year British lease on Hong Kong expired in July allowing the RedChinese to take over. Hundreds of newspaper stories and TV reports havecovered this event but not one revealed how England first gained control ofHong Kong! The truth lies buried in the family line of David Sassoon, "TheRothschilds of The Far East," and their monopoly over the opium trade.Britain won Hong Kong by launching the opium Wars to give the Sassoonsexclusive rights to drug an entire nation!

Hong Kong Founded as Sassoon Drug Center

David Sassoon was born in Baghdad, Iraqn in 1792. His father, Saleh Sassoon, was a wealthy banker and the treasurer to Ahmet Pasha, the governor of Baghdad. (Thus making him the "court Jew" - a highly influential position.) In 1829 Ahmet was

overthrown due to corruption and the Sassoon family fled to Bombay, India. This was the strategic trade route to interior India and the gateway to the Far East. In a brief time the British government granted Sassoon "monopoly rights" to all manufacture of cotton goods, silk and most important of all - Opium - then the most addictive drug in the world!

The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1905, states that Sassoon expanded his opium trade into China and Japan. He placed his eight sons in charge of the various major opiumexchanges in China. According to the 1944 Jewish Encyclopedia: "He employed only Jews in his business, and wherever he sent them he built synagogues and schools for them. He imported whole families of fellow Jews. . . and put them to work."

Sassoon's sons were busy pushing this mind-destroying drug in Canton, China. Between 1830 - 1831 they trafficked 18,956 chests of opium earning millions of dollars. Part of the profits went to Queen Victoria and the British government. In the year 1836 the trade increased to over 30,000 chests and drug addiction in coastal cities became endemic.

In 1839, the Manchu Emperor ordered that it be stopped. He named the Commissioner of Canton, Lin Tse-hsu, to lead a campaign against opium. Lin seized 2,000 chests of Sassoon opium and threw it into the river. An outraged David Sassoon demanded that Great Britain retaliate. Thus, the Opium Wars began with the British Army fighting as mercenaries of the Sassoons. They attacked cities and blockaded ports. The Chinese Army, decimated by 10 years of rampant opium addiction, proved no match for the British Army. The war ended in 1839 with the signing of "The Treaty of Nanking." This included provisions especially designed to guarantee the Sassoons the right to enslave an entire population with opium. The "peace treaty" included these provisions: "1) Full legalization of the opium trade in China, 2) compensation from the opium stockpiles confiscated by Lin of 2 million pounds, 3) territorial sovereignty for the British Crown over severaldesignated offshore islands.

Most of the edible plants in the rainforest were planted by humans over 4500 years ago, new study finds. Modern farmers should look to these ancient forest gardeners for the key to sustainable food production.

fruits-grow-amazon-rainforest_602db19d0d

Ancient humans were practicing a form of agriculture known as horticulture or permaculture in the Amazonian rainforest 4500 years ago, which researchers have concluded is responsible for the overwhelming abundance of edible plants we now find there.
cocoaPlant-300x176.jpg

They say the long-term success of the “forest-gardening” method of food production serves as a model of sustainability for modern farmers.

The study is the first detailed history of long-term human land use in the region conducted by archaeologists, paleoecologists, botanists and ecologists from the University of Exeter in England.

It shows that humans had a more profound effect on the supposedly “untouched” rainforest than previously thought, introducing crops to new areas, boosting the number of edible tree species and using fire to improve the nutrient content of soil,

The researchers found evidence of maize, sweet potato, manioc and squash farming as early as 4,500 years ago in Eastern Brazil.

While the “farmers” practice some clearing of the under-story of the the rainforest, it was nothing like the clear-cutting of forests the Americas have seen since the arrival of the Europeans. The canopy of the forest remained intact, as a protector of the soil and crops.

“Ancient communities likely did clear some understory trees and weeds for farming, but they maintained a closed canopy forest, enriched in edible plants which could bring them food,” saidAmazonian paleoecologist Yoshi Maezumi, who led the study.

Rather than depleting the soil and moving on to clear the next section of land, ancient horticulturalists reused the same soil again and again, improving it by adding manure and food waste (aka composting).

The Amazon is a Man-Made Food Forest, Researchers Discover
AUGUST 1, 2018 AT 2:43 PM

Most of the edible plants in the rainforest were planted by humans over 4500 years ago, new study finds. Modern farmers should look to these ancient forest gardeners for the key to sustainable food production.

fruits-grow-amazon-rainforest_602db19d0d

Ancient humans were practicing a form of agriculture known as horticulture or permaculture in the Amazonian rainforest 4500 years ago, which researchers have concluded is responsible for the overwhelming abundance of edible plants we now find there.
cocoaPlant-300x176.jpg

They say the long-term success of the “forest-gardening” method of food production serves as a model of sustainability for modern farmers.

The study is the first detailed history of long-term human land use in the region conducted by archaeologists, paleoecologists, botanists and ecologists from the University of Exeter in England.

It shows that humans had a more profound effect on the supposedly “untouched” rainforest than previously thought, introducing crops to new areas, boosting the number of edible tree species and using fire to improve the nutrient content of soil,

The researchers found evidence of maize, sweet potato, manioc and squash farming as early as 4,500 years ago in Eastern Brazil.

While the “farmers” practice some clearing of the under-story of the the rainforest, it was nothing like the clear-cutting of forests the Americas have seen since the arrival of the Europeans. The canopy of the forest remained intact, as a protector of the soil and crops.

“Ancient communities likely did clear some understory trees and weeds for farming, but they maintained a closed canopy forest, enriched in edible plants which could bring them food,” saidAmazonian paleoecologist Yoshi Maezumi, who led the study.

Rather than depleting the soil and moving on to clear the next section of land, ancient horticulturalists reused the same soil again and again, improving it by adding manure and food waste (aka composting).

“People thousands of years ago developed a nutrient-rich soil called Amazonian Dark Earths,” Maezumi said. “They farmed in a way which involved continuous enrichment and reusing of the soil, rather than expanding the amount of land they clear-cut for farming. This was a much more sustainable way of farming.”

“This is a very different use of the land to that of today, where large areas of land in the Amazon is cleared and planted for industrial scale grain, soya bean farming and cattle grazing. We hope modern conservationists can learn lessons from indigenous land use in the Amazon to inform management decisions about how to safeguard modern forests.”

Permaculturist and author of Gaia’s Garden Toby Hemenway hypothesized the Amazon rainforest was a man-made forest garden years ago. He also believed much of North America was covered in human-made food forests before the Europeans got here.

“The trees were loaded with walnuts, chestnuts, hickory nuts, beech nuts and acorns, and the rivers with “salmon so thick you couldn’t walk across,” he said. “Unfortunately, the people who tended those food forests were exterminated.”

Learn more about forest gardening, as a sustainable alternative to agriculture, in Hemenway’s book Gaia’s Garden:

“People thousands of years ago developed a nutrient-rich soil called Amazonian Dark Earths,” Maezumi said. “They farmed in a way which involved continuous enrichment and reusing of the soil, rather than expanding the amount of land they clear-cut for farming. This was a much more sustainable way of farming.”

“This is a very different use of the land to that of today, where large areas of land in the Amazon is cleared and planted for industrial scale grain, soya bean farming and cattle grazing. We hope modern conservationists can learn lessons from indigenous land use in the Amazon to inform management decisions about how to safeguard modern forests.”

Permaculturist and author of Gaia’s Garden Toby Hemenway hypothesized the Amazon rainforest was a man-made forest garden years ago. He also believed much of North America was covered in human-made food forests before the Europeans got here.

“The trees were loaded with walnuts, chestnuts, hickory nuts, beech nuts and acorns, and the rivers with “salmon so thick you couldn’t walk across,” he said. “Unfortunately, the people who tended those food forests were exterminated.”

Learn more about forest gardening, as a sustainable alternative to agriculture, in Hemenway’s book Gaia’s Garden:

They are provocatively building a huge holocaust museum yards away from Dealey Plaza where the Chosen blew the brains of the white man JFK because he opposed the Israeli nuclear program and because the Chews didn't like the family.

It was probably the Deep state who killed JFK,the same ones who killed Luther king.

I am talking about in the US, not Ireland. Irish were NOT considered white.

Engels:

Engels: The condition of the working class in England, 1892 "The southern facile character of the Irishman, his crudity, which places him but little above the savage, his contempt for all humane enjoyments, in which his very crudeness makes him incapable of sharing, his filth and poverty, all favour drunkeness. . . . the pressure of this race has done much to depress wages and lower the working-class. . . . That poverty manifests itself in Ireland thus and not otherwise, is owing to the character of the people, and to their historical development. The Irish are a people related in their whole character to the Latin nations, to the French, and especially to the Italians.... With the Irish, feeling and passion predominate; reason must bow before them. Their sensuous, excitable nature prevents reflection and quiet, persevering activity from reaching development -- such a nation is utterly unfit for manufacture as now conducted. . . . Irish distress cannot be removed by any Act of Repeal. Such an Act would, however, at once lay bare the fact that the cause of Irish misery, which now seems to come from abroad is really to be found at home"

An 1874 engraving published in The Illustrated London New shows Irish emigrants preparing to leave the Queenstown port in Cork for the United States. Ann Ronan Pictures/Print Collector/Getty Images

In the 19th-century United States, racism was rampant. Chinese immigrants were openly mocked, often in unfavorable newspaper caricatures. Germans were stereotyped as loitering in beer halls. African-Americans were portrayed in demeaning advertisements. And Irish people — who were not considered "white" by the existing majority at the time — were mistreated, too.

More than 1.5 million people left Ireland for the United States between 1845 and 1855, the survivors of a potato famine that had wiped out more than 1 million people in their homeland. They arrived poor, hungry and sick, and then crowded into cramped tenements in Boston, New York and other Northeastern cities to start anew under difficult conditions.

The struggles of Irish immigrants were compounded by the poor treatment they received from the white, primarily Anglo-Saxon and Protestant establishment. America's existing unskilled workers worried they would be replaced by immigrants willing to work for less than the going rate. And business owners worried that Irish immigrants and African-Americans would band together to demand increased wages.

As a result, locals didn't take kindly to an influx of Irish immigrants competing for resources perceived as limited. In Boston alone, 37,000 Irish immigrants arrived in 1847 — growing the city's population by more than 30 percent, straining employment, rations, housing and relations between populations.

Not only were Irish immigrants viewed as interlopers by many white Americans (an irony, considering the historical treatment of Native Americans), but these immigrants were Catholics in a primarily Protestant land. It was a religious difference that widened the divide, as did the fact that many Irish immigrants didn't speak English. As strange as may it may sound today, Irish immigrants were not considered "white" and were sometimes referred to "negroes turned inside out."

This undated political cartoon from the mid-1800s titled "Uncle Sam's Lodging House" illustrates the perception of Irish immigrants as more problematic to the United States than those from other countries. The cartoon's original caption read: Uncle Sam...

Bettmann/Getty Images

There's proof of this discrimination in cartoons and advertisements that were published during the mid- to late-1800s. Irish often were portrayed as racially different from the wider population of Caucasians and those of Anglo-Saxon heritage, writes historian Noel Ignatiev in his 1995 book "How the Irish Became White." Irish immigrants, both male and female, were drawn with brutish, ape-like features. Even pseudoscience got in on the act. "Comparative Physiognomy," a book by James Redfield published in 1852, made comparisons between the facial structure of Irish people and dogs. Redfield went on to claim that, because of their appearance, the Irish had an animalistic character that made them cruel and cowardly.

"Among the Irish, the commonality take to dirt-digging more naturally than to anything else," Redfield wrote. "They are dirty in their persons, and admit pigs in their mud-cabins which they themselves occupy. They are good servants if you deal harshly with them, as a master does with his dog; but the moment you are disposed to be familiar with them they are all over you, jumping against you and laying their dirty paws upon your clean clothes, as if you were no better than they."

This newspaper illustration depicts the New York draft riots of 1863, when working-class New Yorkers protested conscription into the Union Army to fight in the ongoing Civil War. Irish immigrants are portrayed in the drawing with dehumanizing, brutish,...

The Print Collector/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

This type of xenophobia — the fear of people or things perceived to be different — was bolstered by the formation of the Know-Nothing Party, a U.S. political party that originated in 1849 and grew during the following decade. Members of the party opposed the Catholic religion in general and Irish Catholics in particular. They feared Irish Catholics would take over the U.S. and potentially raise up the pope as the country's ruler, replacing secular law with religious dictates.

Although Irish immigrants faced oppression in the United States, they also participated in it. African-Americans and Irish were considered by many Northern whites to be on equal footing, but many Irish immigrants quickly embraced "white" identities and became part of the social construct that oppressed African-Americans as an avenue to better employment, interweaving issues of classism and racism.

"Once the Irish secured themselves in those jobs, they made sure blacks were kept out," writes historian Art McDonald. "They realized that as long as they continued to work alongside blacks, they would be considered no different. Later, as Irish became prominent in the labor movement, African Americans were excluded from participation ... And so, we have the tragic story of how one oppressed 'race,' Irish Catholics, learned how to collaborate in the oppression of another 'race,' Africans in America, in order to secure their place in the white republic."

Race relations in the United States have long been complicated, and suffering and discrimination is not a zero-sum; for instance, see the discredited but persistent myth of Irish slavery that still makes the rounds on the internet. Today, it may be difficult to imagine a time when fair-skinned people of Irish descent weren't considered white. However, definitions of race have changed over time — and may be just as rooted in class, labor, economics and fear as they are in skin pigmentation.